http://kentarchaeology.org.uk/research/archaeologia-cantiana/ Kent Archaeological Society is a registered charity number 223382 © 2017 Kent Archaeological Society THE ROYALIST RISING AND PARLIAMENTARY MUTINIES OF 1645 IN WEST KENT F.D. JOHNS, M.A. The accounts of a royalist rising and the associated parliamentary mutinies in west Kent in April/May 1645 in general histories of the Civil Wars are almost invariably brief and sometimes inaccurate.1 A problem is posed by the apparent unreliability of parts of the principal source material, the Thomason Tracts, a collection of contemporary newspapers, political pamphlets, etc., which were deposited at the British Museum (now the British Library) in 1908. The references to the Thomason Tracts in the footnotes of this paper, E260, E278 and E279, correspond to those of the relevant Tracts as catalogued at the British Library. Another important source is the Calendar of State Papers Domestic Series 1644-45, also at the British Library; references are abbreviated in the footnotes to C.S.P.D. Kent remained throughout the Civil Wars under the firm control of Parliament operating through its County Committee, which was chaired by the dictatorial and unpopular Sir Anthony Weldon of Swanscombe. The Committee's autocratic rule and the punitive taxation which it levied in support of the war were much resented, while the royalist cause continued to command widespread sym- pathy. These factors had been responsible in the summer of 1643 for a rebellion in west Kent led by many of the landed gentry. After the revolt was suppressed its most important leaders were imprisoned, 1 The shortest account, CV. Wedgwood, The King's War, London, 1958, 438, devotes a single line to the disturbances, while the contemporaneous, Lord Clarendon, History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England, Oxford 1843 edn., has nothing to say about them. The most complete and best documented account is in Alan Everitt, The Community of Kent and the Great Rebellion, 1640-60, Leicester, 1973, 215 ff., to which the writer is much indebted. Professor A.M. Everitt, whom the writer has consulted, has not been able to comment constructively on an abridged version of this paper as his own notes have been destroyed; he has, however, observed that someone working locally may well be able to correct statements made many years ago in a more general work. 1 F.D. JOHNS their estates were sequestered by a committee set up for the purpose, and many fines were levied.2 By the end of 1644 the war had reached a stalemate which would be broken by the side that succeeded in raising a field army capable of operating effectively as a strategic force anywhere in Britain. Hitherto, both sides had depended largely on volunteers whose supply was now exhausted. Parliament was experiencing difficulty in getting the trained bands to serve outside their coun- ties, and the king's commissions of array were ineffective even in areas under his control. The Committee of Both Kingdoms sitting at Derby House, London, therefore, recommended in January 1645 the formation of a new field army, which came to be known as 'The New Model Army', under the command of Sir Thomas Fairfax, who set up his headquarters at Windsor. The required number of men, 22,000, was to be provided by the three existing parliamentary armies, augmented by 8,640 conscripts drawn from the City of London, the Eastern Association and the counties of Surrey, Sussex and Kent.3 The contingent of Kentish conscripts was probably mustered as a regiment at Maidstone, whence it was escorted towards Windsor. It did not get far; some time on or before 12 April the force reached Wrotham Heath about ten miles from Maidstone, where the roads to Blackheath and London, and to Sevenoaks and Windsor, diverge. The conscripts, who then realised their destination, mutinied and seized a manor house, the identity of which will be discussed.4 A royalist rising broke out at about the same time as the mutiny. Its centre was in the Darent valley, the places named in a contemporary report being Harrington (Horton Kirby), Ainsford (Eynsford), LuIIingstone and Chelsfield, although it would appear that the affected area was more extensive. The rebels also seized a manor house, named 'Levingstoke', and variously described as 'the house of Master Hart', 'Captaine Hart's house who is a brother of Sir Percival Hart' and 'Sir Percival Hart's house'. They demanded that the local people should declare for the king or else be plundered as the king's enemies. They took prisoners, and 150 horse and some arms as loot, but failed to surprise the County Committee at Aylesford and capture 2 F.D. Johns, 'The Royalist Rebellion of 1643, Fines on Kentish Rebels', Journal of Kent History (hereafter J.K.H.), 34, March 1992, 3-6. 3 D. Smurthwaite, The Battlefields of Britain, London, 1984, 136-8; S.R. Gardiner, History of the Great Civil War 1642- 49, London, 1886, ii, 148. 4 E278 (8) (13). 2 THE PARLIAMENTARY MUTINIES OF 1645 the magazine there. Sir Percival Hart and Master Hart were both said to command them.5 The reports that members of the Hart family led the rebels appear to be unfounded. Sir Percival Hart died in March 1641/2 so he could not have been their leader. It is most unlikely that his son William Hart would have led them because his daughter was married to Sir Anthony Weldon, the most influential parliamentarian in Kent.6 There were, of course, a number of families with divided loyalties.7 It is, however, improbable that the head of the Hart family would have actively supported the king. The family clearly kept a low profile throughout the conflict, its estates were not sequestered and its fortunes even seem to have prospered, so that early in the following century William Hart's successors were able to rebuild the Tudor manor house to create LuIIingstone Castle (only the gate-house survived the rebuilding) and restore the manorial church of St. Botolph.8 It is apparent from reports in contemporary newspapers of the situation of the houses seized by the mutineers and the rebels, respectively, and of members of the Hart family possessing both, that their authors confused the two events. One report places the house seized by the mutineers as 'neere Farningham', i.e., at LuIIingstone, and others state that the house seized by the rebels was 'adjacent to a Towne called Rootham' and 'adjacent to a Towne called Rollington' (Wrotham).9 Such reports display an ignorance of the local topo- graphy, for LuIIingstone is over seven miles from Wrotham Heath, the undoubted scene of the mutiny, and is certainly not adjacent to Wrotham, the two places being six miles apart. Fortunately, the location of the house seized by the mutineers becomes clear from other reports which state that the place where they 'fell on their convoy' was seven miles from Sevenoaks, i.e., Wrotham Heath, and 'the mutinous rout of men to avoid pressing were gotten together at a house at Rootham'.10 The house seized by the rebels, on the other hand, was 'within eight miles of Sir Henry Vane's house' (the present 'Fairlawne' at Plaxtol) and was certainly the manor house at 5 E260 (15) (17); E278 (18) (30). The Kingfisher bridge over the river Darent was formerly known as Leventhorpe bridge (S. Pittman, LuIIingstone Park, Meresworth Books, 1983, 47). 6 S. Robertson, 'Peche of Lulhngstone', Arch. Cant., xvi (1886), 239. 7 Professor A.M. Everitt, personal communication. 8 S. Pittman, op. cit., 42-3. 9 E260 (15); E278 (13) (15). It is apparent from the similar wording of the two reports that Rollington is Wrotham, not LuIIingstone as in Alan Everitt, op. cit., 216, n. 1. 10 E278 (8) (12). 3 F.D. JOHNS LuIIingstone.11 The evident confusion appears to have led to the assumption that members of the Hart family possessed both houses. There can be little doubt that the house seized and fortified by the mutineers was Ford Place (N.G.R. TQ 637587), situated in Nepicar Borough in the parish of Wrotham; in 1645, it was on the direct line of march from Maidstone.12 Only one wing of the original U-shaped medieval and Tudor building still stands. A local tradition that at least one of the other two wings was destroyed by Cromwellian (sic) soldiers has received support from the discovery in the 1960s of a seventeenth-century three pound cannon-ball embedded in the masonry of the surviving wing.13 Ford Place was owned in 1645 by Lady Jane Clark, the widow of Sir William Clark, who raised a troop of horse, joined the king and was killed at the battle of Cropredy Bridge on 29 June, 1644.14 His estate was sequestered in 1643, but Lady Cecilia Swan, sister of Lady Jane Clark, successfully petitioned the County Committee for Sequestrations in November 1645 to compound for a fine of £600, later reduced to £445; the reduction may have been compensation for the damage to Ford Place.15 The churchwardens' accounts for the parish of Wrotham from Easter 1644 to Easter 1647 show 'The Lady Clarke' as the owner.16 Was the mutiny organised by the royalists part of a grand strategy in the winter and spring of 1644-45, involving a plot to seize Dover Castle (there was an abortive attempt) and the advance of a royalist army led by Lord Goring through Surrey into Kent, or was it unpremeditated?17 In the writer's opinion the latter is more likely. Impressment was very unpopular, especially as the conscripts were 11 E260 (17).